"Worst mobile networks for London rail commuters revealed"
Forum Member
✭
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/11159142/Worst-mobile-networks-for-London-rail-commuters-revealed.html
I found it quite surprising that O2 used the half rate codec for such a high percentage of calls, surely they must have a similar density of masts ?
I found it quite surprising that O2 used the half rate codec for such a high percentage of calls, surely they must have a similar density of masts ?
0
Comments
And 4G is just the latest load of crap that sometimes, maybe, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, will give what it is supposed to promise. (But not for long)
High prices and give crap in return. Typical Britain!
Whilst that's true, is isn't just about coverage. When there was coverage it was 2G 60% of the time on O2, with half-rate audio codecs, now the audio codec is nothing to do with coverage.
It is one thing to be the only network not to offer HD voice, it is quite another to not even offer SD voice!!!
Posts like this aren't very helpful unless you're going to post a bit more. Why are they the worst, they have the greatest 4G, MBNL for 3G, they run a 2G network and they tend to come out top on most of the Root Metrics reports. At least say why otherwise it doesn't add anything to the conversation.
I'd argue that spending 60% of your commute on 2G and then when you do make calls having to hear them in half quality codec sounds like a pretty good nomination for worst to me.
In rural areas, at least in Hampshire, 3G on MBNL is much better on MBNL than O2/Vodafone as you'd expect but there are still large areas which have no 3G coverage on MBNL and no EE 2G signal but have full 2G on Vodafone/O2.
It's all very well having a much larger 3G network but when there's no signal at all, I'd rather take 2G, which is what Vodafone/O2 seem to provide.
Vodafone/O2 just seem to have more robust networks, in terms of where there's coverage, it's usually very good. Whereas, in my experience of MBNL, there's often coverage, it's just not very high quality.
Hence I choose O2, for now.
That's quite surprising but granted every area is different.
I quite often visit Mid Wales and even now there seem to be large areas which only have EE (Orange 2G) but nothing from the other networks. Maybe in other areas where Orange masts have been turned off things have got worse.
Here my phone signal vanishes soon as you set foot on a train, let alone underground!!
A point against O2 and not being harsh to them by now but they should of fixed there voice quality problems by now. Honestly should really have rolled out HDVoice by now and be looking at VoLTE they certainly behind the other networks in the UK in that regard. I can always tell when I am being called by someone on O2.
Because the train companies / station owners, and the underground railway operators have in many cases worked with the mobile companies. In the UK our train companies haven't seen the need (!).
Yes, I think I've read that. But these days it is more likely to be WiFi in the train and microwave uplink masts beside the tracks.
Most european countries have more space by the tracks than we do in the UK, and higher bridges so they can run double decker trains.
Try using your phone on the Alton to Waterloo line by the way. That's a fun challenge.
This really annoys me as my company use O2 and some people just simply cannot be heard though the conferencing system phones in the meeting rooms if they are on their O2 phones. Several times we've had to tell them to hang up and call them on their landline and the difference is so massive.
I can only imagine this is the O2 half-bitrate problem. I wish I had 2 recordings, half and normal so that I could post them here as you would see exactly what I mean.
It's entirely down to Network Rail and I believe it is working with the networks to roll out 4G trackside.
Until then, 800MHz LTE with VoLTE should make a huge difference to railway coverage.